I asked a few weeks ago what the left exactly want in regards global warming. Not much response.

[Weatherman2020]

Stop with your propaganda
Global warming is a reality. It is recognized as legitimate science by 93% of scientists around the world. The only place it is denied is among republicans who are in the pocket of big oil

Again with the strawmman arguement. No one has ever claimed the climate has never changed. And your 93% arguement is proven bullshit. And then the hilarious BIG OIL! hysterical rant.

So why does your agenda always require you to lie so often?

Oh yes......the old
We need to wait ten thousand years before we can decide we need to do something

Scientists have linked specific man made activities that have accelerated climate change in the last 100 years

93% of scientists concur in manmade global warming.

Only those protecting the profits of the oil companies disagree

Has nothing to do with man. The climate has been changing for millions of years. We arent the cause. To suggest that we are is pure arrogance. You may want to direct your attention to the science that is showing gravitational effects on the planets in our solar system. There are extreme changes that are occuring on all of the planets in our solar system.

It has been accelerating in the last 100 years corresponding with our industrial expansion

PROVABLY false. Extensive historical data shows that the Arctic ice melt was significantly higher in the late 1800's than the last 40 years.

Yep. Glacier Bay glacier receded 60 miles in 80 years - in the 1800's before the Industrial Age.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The only thing outrageous is the doomsdayers like Obama buying a 11,000 sq ft home for $40M and telling me I need to reduce my carbon footprint.

When the Doomsdayers start acting like its a crisis I MIGHT start listening.

What does one have to do with the other?

We are looking at a nationwide policy

A nationwide policy built upon lies.
If Obama wants to aircondition his 11,050 sq ft mansion he has zero right to tell me I need to reduce my carbon footprint.

Stop with your propaganda
Global warming is a reality. It is recognized as legitimate science by 93% of scientists around the world. The only place it is denied is among republicans who are in the pocket of big oil

Again with the strawmman arguement. No one has ever claimed the climate has never changed. And your 93% arguement is proven bullshit. And then the hilarious BIG OIL! hysterical rant.

So why does your agenda always require you to lie so often?

Oh yes......the old
We need to wait ten thousand years before we can decide we need to do something

Scientists have linked specific man made activities that have accelerated climate change in the last 100 years

93% of scientists concur in manmade global warming.

Only those protecting the profits of the oil companies disagree

Why does the agenda of you doomsdayers require you to always lie?

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

 

[LeftofLeft]

If we shifted overnight to ban oil, Liberal Elitists would shit themselves....no yachts, no chauffeur-driven SUVs, no private jets. Further, look how the Liberal elites react when wind driven turbines are put within eyesight of their seaside mansions.....immediate calls to have the turbines move due to them before NGTX an eyesore.

You liberals are full of shit.....so much so that you blame Russians and not substance.

 

[gipper]

If we shifted overnight to ban oil, Liberal Elitists would shit themselves....no yachts, no chauffeur-driven SUVs, no private jets. Further, look how the Liberal elites react when wind driven turbines are put within eyesight of their seaside mansions.....immediate calls to have the turbines move due to them before NGTX an eyesore.

You liberals are full of shit.....so much so that you blame Russians and not substance.

They tend to be easily persuaded or influenced by the elite left...dupes really.

 

[rightwinger]

What does one have to do with the other?

We are looking at a nationwide policy

A nationwide policy built upon lies.
If Obama wants to aircondition his 11,050 sq ft mansion he has zero right to tell me I need to reduce my carbon footprint.

Stop with your propaganda
Global warming is a reality. It is recognized as legitimate science by 93% of scientists around the world. The only place it is denied is among republicans who are in the pocket of big oil

Again with the strawmman arguement. No one has ever claimed the climate has never changed. And your 93% arguement is proven bullshit. And then the hilarious BIG OIL! hysterical rant.

So why does your agenda always require you to lie so often?

Oh yes......the old
We need to wait ten thousand years before we can decide we need to do something

Scientists have linked specific man made activities that have accelerated climate change in the last 100 years

93% of scientists concur in manmade global warming.

Only those protecting the profits of the oil companies disagree

Why does the agenda of you doomsdayers require you to always lie?

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".

So your only objection is to the "degree" of harm humans are causing while you concede that humans are impacting global warming

Your source which says
"because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have cause some global warming"

Seems to conflict with the lock step denial of our USMB apologists as well as the Republican Party which denies it completly

 

[rightwinger]

If we shifted overnight to ban oil, Liberal Elitists would shit themselves....no yachts, no chauffeur-driven SUVs, no private jets. Further, look how the Liberal elites react when wind driven turbines are put within eyesight of their seaside mansions.....immediate calls to have the turbines move due to them before NGTX an eyesore.

You liberals are full of shit.....so much so that you blame Russians and not substance.

Again with the "Liberals want to ban all oil" strawman

Why do you object so rigorously to reducing our dependence on oil?
What are you afraid of?

 

[LeftofLeft]

If we shifted overnight to ban oil, Liberal Elitists would shit themselves....no yachts, no chauffeur-driven SUVs, no private jets. Further, look how the Liberal elites react when wind driven turbines are put within eyesight of their seaside mansions.....immediate calls to have the turbines move due to them before NGTX an eyesore.

You liberals are full of shit.....so much so that you blame Russians and not substance.

Again with the "Liberals want to ban all oil" strawman

Why do you object so rigorously to reducing our dependence on oil?
What are you afraid of?

I am afraid of arbitrary mandates that results in higher oil costs without a plan to transition without impacting the economic health of US.

I am all for alternatives and less dependence on oil, starting with less foreign oil dependence. Why is it that the Left deems it necessary to compromise the economic health because of their simple hatred of oil and the business behind it? Why is it that the Left ok with foreign oil independence vs. domestic production?

 

[rightwinger]

If we shifted overnight to ban oil, Liberal Elitists would shit themselves....no yachts, no chauffeur-driven SUVs, no private jets. Further, look how the Liberal elites react when wind driven turbines are put within eyesight of their seaside mansions.....immediate calls to have the turbines move due to them before NGTX an eyesore.

You liberals are full of shit.....so much so that you blame Russians and not substance.

Again with the "Liberals want to ban all oil" strawman

Why do you object so rigorously to reducing our dependence on oil?
What are you afraid of?

I am afraid of arbitrary mandates that results in higher oil costs without a plan to transition without impacting the economic health of US.

I am all for alternatives and less dependence on oil, starting with less foreign oil dependence. Why is it that the Left deems it necessary to compromise the economic health because of their simple hatred of oil and the business behind it? Why is it that the Left ok with foreign oil independence vs. domestic production?

We are looking at a gradual process to reduce our dependence on oil....why does that scare you?
What is wrong with having a more balanced energy policy that was not written by the oil companies?
Why do you oppose any investment in alternative energy sources?

Are you controlled by the oil companies that much?

 

[Weatherman2020]

A nationwide policy built upon lies.
If Obama wants to aircondition his 11,050 sq ft mansion he has zero right to tell me I need to reduce my carbon footprint.

Stop with your propaganda
Global warming is a reality. It is recognized as legitimate science by 93% of scientists around the world. The only place it is denied is among republicans who are in the pocket of big oil

Again with the strawmman arguement. No one has ever claimed the climate has never changed. And your 93% arguement is proven bullshit. And then the hilarious BIG OIL! hysterical rant.

So why does your agenda always require you to lie so often?

Oh yes......the old
We need to wait ten thousand years before we can decide we need to do something

Scientists have linked specific man made activities that have accelerated climate change in the last 100 years

93% of scientists concur in manmade global warming.

Only those protecting the profits of the oil companies disagree

Why does the agenda of you doomsdayers require you to always lie?

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".

So your only objection is to the "degree" of harm humans are causing while you concede that humans are impacting global warming

Your source which says
"because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have cause some global warming"

Seems to conflict with the lock step denial of our USMB apologists as well as the Republican Party which denies it completly

Why does your agenda require you to lie?

 

[rightwinger]

Stop with your propaganda
Global warming is a reality. It is recognized as legitimate science by 93% of scientists around the world. The only place it is denied is among republicans who are in the pocket of big oil

Again with the strawmman arguement. No one has ever claimed the climate has never changed. And your 93% arguement is proven bullshit. And then the hilarious BIG OIL! hysterical rant.

So why does your agenda always require you to lie so often?

Oh yes......the old
We need to wait ten thousand years before we can decide we need to do something

Scientists have linked specific man made activities that have accelerated climate change in the last 100 years

93% of scientists concur in manmade global warming.

Only those protecting the profits of the oil companies disagree

Why does the agenda of you doomsdayers require you to always lie?

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".

So your only objection is to the "degree" of harm humans are causing while you concede that humans are impacting global warming

Your source which says
"because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have cause some global warming"

Seems to conflict with the lock step denial of our USMB apologists as well as the Republican Party which denies it completly

Why does your agenda require you to lie?

?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Again with the strawmman arguement. No one has ever claimed the climate has never changed. And your 93% arguement is proven bullshit. And then the hilarious BIG OIL! hysterical rant.

So why does your agenda always require you to lie so often?

Oh yes......the old
We need to wait ten thousand years before we can decide we need to do something

Scientists have linked specific man made activities that have accelerated climate change in the last 100 years

93% of scientists concur in manmade global warming.

Only those protecting the profits of the oil companies disagree

Why does the agenda of you doomsdayers require you to always lie?

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".

So your only objection is to the "degree" of harm humans are causing while you concede that humans are impacting global warming

Your source which says
"because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have cause some global warming"

Seems to conflict with the lock step denial of our USMB apologists as well as the Republican Party which denies it completly

Why does your agenda require you to lie?

?

Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.
Why does your agenda require you to lie?

 

[gipper]

Oh yes......the old
We need to wait ten thousand years before we can decide we need to do something

Scientists have linked specific man made activities that have accelerated climate change in the last 100 years

93% of scientists concur in manmade global warming.

Only those protecting the profits of the oil companies disagree

Why does the agenda of you doomsdayers require you to always lie?

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".

So your only objection is to the "degree" of harm humans are causing while you concede that humans are impacting global warming

Your source which says
"because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have cause some global warming"

Seems to conflict with the lock step denial of our USMB apologists as well as the Republican Party which denies it completly

Why does your agenda require you to lie?

?

Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.
Why does your agenda require you to lie?

He doesn't know it's a lie. That is a characteristic of a dupe.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh yes......the old
We need to wait ten thousand years before we can decide we need to do something

Scientists have linked specific man made activities that have accelerated climate change in the last 100 years

93% of scientists concur in manmade global warming.

Only those protecting the profits of the oil companies disagree

Why does the agenda of you doomsdayers require you to always lie?

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".

So your only objection is to the "degree" of harm humans are causing while you concede that humans are impacting global warming

Your source which says
"because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have cause some global warming"

Seems to conflict with the lock step denial of our USMB apologists as well as the Republican Party which denies it completly

Why does your agenda require you to lie?

?

Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.
Why does your agenda require you to lie?

Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree

 

[LeftofLeft]

If we shifted overnight to ban oil, Liberal Elitists would shit themselves....no yachts, no chauffeur-driven SUVs, no private jets. Further, look how the Liberal elites react when wind driven turbines are put within eyesight of their seaside mansions.....immediate calls to have the turbines move due to them before NGTX an eyesore.

You liberals are full of shit.....so much so that you blame Russians and not substance.

Again with the "Liberals want to ban all oil" strawman

Why do you object so rigorously to reducing our dependence on oil?
What are you afraid of?

I am afraid of arbitrary mandates that results in higher oil costs without a plan to transition without impacting the economic health of US.

I am all for alternatives and less dependence on oil, starting with less foreign oil dependence. Why is it that the Left deems it necessary to compromise the economic health because of their simple hatred of oil and the business behind it? Why is it that the Left ok with foreign oil independence vs. domestic production?

We are looking at a gradual process to reduce our dependence on oil....why does that scare you?
What is wrong with having a more balanced energy policy that was not written by the oil companies?
Why do you oppose any investment in alternative energy sources?

Are you controlled by the oil companies that much?

I stated I am not opposed to alternative energy. In fact, my plan, we would increase domestic drilling AND provide incentives for traditional oil and startups alike to invest and deliver alternatives to market. You say "gradual". Define gradual. How many job losses does that entail in the short term among oil workers? What impact does that have on taxes and regulation of current oil products?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

And you can bet your high priests won't cut anything. Dupe!

The already have

Obama has cut emissions more than any other president. We still added 11 million jobs and added $50 trillion to the economy

Apparently English is not your first language. Your leaders will never curtail their personal energy use. They will force the rest of us to because they are tyrants

Straw.....meet man

Subliminal Serfdom

For 60 years, advertising on children's TV was designed to make kids hate their fathers for not becoming rich and buying them expensive toys. This wannabe Preppy self-image carries over from childhood, long after the original indoctrination is forgotten.

Tell us more Oedipus

Preppy Progressives and Trustfundie Treehuggers are spoiled pushy bossy brats who hate their plutocratic Daddies. I don't know about the having sex with their Mother part, but this whole movement was created by those who have a personal problem with their fathers.

 

[Redfish]

Why does the agenda of you doomsdayers require you to always lie?

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".

So your only objection is to the "degree" of harm humans are causing while you concede that humans are impacting global warming

Your source which says
"because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have cause some global warming"

Seems to conflict with the lock step denial of our USMB apologists as well as the Republican Party which denies it completly

Why does your agenda require you to lie?

?

Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.
Why does your agenda require you to lie?

Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree

WRONG !. What it concludes is that there is man made pollution. The link between pollution and warming has never been proven.

But, once again, why do you need that link? Why not just campaign to reduce pollution? That's your real issue isn't it? or is the real issue finding ways to control behavior that YOU don't like? Think, before answering, and try to be truthful.

 

[rightwinger]

"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".

So your only objection is to the "degree" of harm humans are causing while you concede that humans are impacting global warming

Your source which says
"because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have cause some global warming"

Seems to conflict with the lock step denial of our USMB apologists as well as the Republican Party which denies it completly

Why does your agenda require you to lie?

?

Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.
Why does your agenda require you to lie?

Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree

WRONG !. What it concludes is that there is man made pollution. The link between pollution and warming has never been proven.

But, once again, why do you need that link? Why not just campaign to reduce pollution? That's your real issue isn't it? or is the real issue finding ways to control behavior that YOU don't like? Think, before answering, and try to be truthful.

"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".

 

[Redfish]

Why does your agenda require you to lie?

?

Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.
Why does your agenda require you to lie?

Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree

WRONG !. What it concludes is that there is man made pollution. The link between pollution and warming has never been proven.

But, once again, why do you need that link? Why not just campaign to reduce pollution? That's your real issue isn't it? or is the real issue finding ways to control behavior that YOU don't like? Think, before answering, and try to be truthful.

"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".

the link between man made pollution and global warming is based on a THEORY. It is based on computer models that were created using that same THEORY. Nothing in the AGW religion is based on proven climate history, atmospheric history, ice core history, carbon dating, or any other proven method. it is all theory.

But please tell me why you need the link between pollution and climate in order to tackle the real problem of manmade pollution. Not one of you flaming warmers has even attempted to answer that.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

If we shifted overnight to ban oil, Liberal Elitists would shit themselves....no yachts, no chauffeur-driven SUVs, no private jets. Further, look how the Liberal elites react when wind driven turbines are put within eyesight of their seaside mansions.....immediate calls to have the turbines move due to them before NGTX an eyesore.

You liberals are full of shit.....so much so that you blame Russians and not substance.

Again with the "Liberals want to ban all oil" strawman

Why do you object so rigorously to reducing our dependence on oil?
What are you afraid of?

Your Fear of Us Will Be Your Future

You Eco-Eunuchs want a low-energy society that will be easy for you to dominate. You want us to be weaklings; that's the real reason you're against muscle cars. You sadists want us to be crammed into public transportation in order to minimize us. Your bossy clique fears individualists with that feeling of strength we get from driving a high-horsepower machine. Fear of becoming Rodham Roadkill is what drives you to walk all over us.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

?

Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.
Why does your agenda require you to lie?

Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree

WRONG !. What it concludes is that there is man made pollution. The link between pollution and warming has never been proven.

But, once again, why do you need that link? Why not just campaign to reduce pollution? That's your real issue isn't it? or is the real issue finding ways to control behavior that YOU don't like? Think, before answering, and try to be truthful.

"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".

the link between man made pollution and global warming is based on a THEORY. It is based on computer models that were created using that same THEORY. Nothing in the AGW religion is based on proven climate history, atmospheric history, ice core history, carbon dating, or any other proven method. it is all theory.

But please tell me why you need the link between pollution and climate in order to tackle the real problem of manmade pollution. Not one of you flaming warmers has even attempted to answer that.

"Clean," Natural Air Is the Most Toxic of All

"Pollution" is a dishonest word for byproducts, a neutral term. Byproducts below a certain level are actually beneficial; they kill dangerous microbes and insects. If we ever go completely solar, expect plague after plague, as it was before all these processes were invented that so dearly offend the superstitious retrograde nature-lovers.